MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111317573 · doi:10.1177/0192513x04270210

Open Adoption as a Family Form

2005· article· en· W2111317573 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Family Issues · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChild Welfare and Adoption
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpenness to experienceConfidentialityRelevance (law)Sample (material)PsychologyTelephone surveyMedical educationPublic relationsApplied psychologyBusinessMarketingSocial psychologyMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, community assessments of support for three levels of open adoption are examined, including two types of mediated adoption, fully disclosed adoption, and confidential adoption. Combining telephone survey data from a Canada-wide random sample of 706 respondents with 82 qualitative interviews, the authors report on community assessments of these levels of openness and the relevance of these results for other survey research conducted on these issues. The authors also explore community assessments of the perceived advantages and disadvantages of open adoption and confidential adoption for adoptive parents, birthparents, and adopted children and how these may or may not reflect clinical assessments. Finally, the authors consider the implications of these results for clinical initiatives with members of the adoption triangle.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.776
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it